350 réponses à ce sujet

[vnth]

Which is wrong.

ugh this is getting painful. do you have any logical argument or even elaboration left in you or this is or you can muster? you might willing to use noise as a method of debate. me less so.

 

 

Usually when people have nothing to say, they stop talking. I like to stick with facts. Metacritic user reviews don't meet the basic requirements of a review, their scores are tainted, thus they're worthless. Very simple.

erm..yes? this is clearly the case for both of us, with the only difference being your stubbornness, which, to be honest, is getting rather embarrassing. you ran out of thing to say ages ago and admit as much right the next sentence. if you want people to respond to you, you need to say something worthy of responding.

 

 

That's a peculiar brand of logic on your side. "I have nothing more to say, you're wrong because I say so." Interesting.

nope didnt say that ever.

[robertthebard]

ugh this is getting painful. do you have any logical argument or even elaboration left in you or this is or you can muster? you might willing to use noise as a method of debate. me less so.
erm..yes? this is clearly the case for both of us, with the only difference being your stubbornness, which, to be honest, is getting rather embarrassing. you ran out of thing to say ages ago and admit as much right the next sentence. if you want people to respond to you, you need to say something worthy of responding.
nope didnt say that ever.

One can't argue hyperbole with logic. One can only argue it with more hyperbole, which is why I've dropped this conversation. Your logic states that the review scores don't matter, this despite that that's the sole reason the site exists, to provide it's Metascore, so people can get an idea of what the game's about. At least, that's what their own website claims.* You've stated that the site's lack of integrity doesn't matter to you, so long as you can read enough rage in the reviews. You then go on to contradict yourself by pointing out that "other sites have integrity issues too".

*From their website:

Metacritic's proprietary Metascore distills the opinions of the most respected critics writing online and in print to a single number.

There's my logic. There's my reading comprehension. Where's yours? Where does it say that one should disregard their metascore in favor of reviews that are very definitely not written by "the most respected critics writing online and in print". Any questions?

[vnth]

One can't argue hyperbole with logic. One can only argue it with more hyperbole, which is why I've dropped this conversation. Your logic states that the review scores don't matter, this despite that that's the sole reason the site exists, to provide it's Metascore, so people can get an idea of what the game's about. 

what the..? first of all im very sure this isnt "our" conversation, because unless my memory fails me, the last time we spoke, we left off with the monkey thing. but i understand, if i had said something like that, id rather ignore it too. no biggie though, feel free to drop in, except you're not saying anything new and ive already replied to all of this before so... read my old posts i guess?

 

 

 

You've stated that the site's lack of integrity doesn't matter to you, so long as you can read enough rage in the reviews. You then go on to contradict yourself by pointing out that "other sites have integrity issues too".

now im convinced youre doing this on purpose. needless to say, nope i didnt say any of that. also, none of it make sense.

 

 

Where does it say that one should disregard their metascore in favor of reviews that are very definitely not written by "the most respected critics writing online and in print".

it doesnt say anywhere that we can stuff the carcass of dead animals and pretend that they're still alive but we do it all the same. what's your point? 

[keyip]

ugh this is getting painful. do you have any logical argument or even elaboration left in you or this is or you can muster?

 

I already have. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem. The facts clearly state though that you are wrong. EDIT: Most of the criticisms you read on Metacritic were doing the rounds long before, and those that weren't were up on forums minutes after the game was released. In more detail and earlier than Metacritic's shite offerings. I explained this to you a page ago.

 

 

erm..yes? this is clearly the case for both of us, with the only difference being your stubbornness, 

 

Nope. I have presented facts which you have no answer for, and thus you descend into squirming, uneasy laughter and accusations. Amusing but otherwise tedious.

 

 

nope didnt say that ever.

 

You don't have to say it, it's clear from what you've written

[vnth]

I already have. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem. The facts clearly state though that you are wrong. EDIT: Most of the criticisms you read on Metacritic were doing the rounds long before, and those that weren't were up on forums minutes after the game was released. In more detail and earlier than Metacritic's shite offerings. I explained this to you a page ago.

oh still clinging on the stock criticism theory i see. 

 

 

Nope. I have presented facts which you have no answer for, and thus you descend into squirming, uneasy laughter and accusations. Amusing but otherwise tedious.

oh boy this is rich. first you accused me of "trying" while at the same time tried to twist other's word in an attempt to cover the fact none what you said have any relevant. and when that failed spectacularly, yu accused me of "squirming" and "accusing" while squirming your way out of this farce that you get yourself into in the first place. you yourself have admitted mt is useful as a "misc complain source" pages ago, but the more you go on, the more defensive you get, leaving out that part entirely while placing emphasis on the definition of review and score and whatever. did i hit the mark? people are not twelve. it is entirely transparent to everyone what you're doing. keep this insipid farce going if you must.

 

 

You don't have to say it, it's clear from what you've written

either you misread my argument entirely or you genuinely dont understand what self-evident is. im not sure which is sadder. regardless, as i said before, you can make up anything you want or feign ignorant and that wouldnt change the fact that mt complaints are spot on, which i guess is the reason youre clinging on your only 2 arguments: stock criticism and definition of review.

[keyip]

oh still clinging on the stock criticism theory i see. 

 

 

Shown to be valid earlier in the thread. Your disdain means little to me, if you want to show it to be invalid then do so.

 

 

oh boy this is rich.

 

Tedious actually. You ran out of things long ago and have been whinging ever since.

 

you yourself have admitted mt is useful as a "misc complain source" 

 

It's such a pity its worth is adjudicated on how useful it is as a review service, which is a good thing because complaint services are arguably of little use. Not to mention the rote and late complaints on Metacritic make its use questionable even as a "complaint service."

 

Metacritic is a "review site" and its "user reviews" are worthless, thus it fails in its purpose. This is inarguable. 

 

either you misread my argument entirely or you genuinely dont understand what self-evident is. im not sure which is sadder.

 

Your assertions with nothing backing things up make it painfully clear.

[robertthebard]

what the..? first of all im very sure this isnt "our" conversation, because unless my memory fails me, the last time we spoke, we left off with the monkey thing. but i understand, if i had said something like that, id rather ignore it too. no biggie though, feel free to drop in, except you're not saying anything new and ive already replied to all of this before so... read my old posts i guess?

Well, thanks for your permission to post, I'm not sure I could go on w/out your consent.
 

now im convinced youre doing this on purpose. needless to say, nope i didnt say any of that. also, none of it make sense.

Welcome to our world? We've been telling you it doesn't make any sense for days now, I'm glad you're starting to realize it. Also, it might be wise to not deny things you said in a forum where people can do exactly as you suggested, and go read your old posts, and then link them for anyone else that's interested in seeing just how much credence they should lend to anything you say.

it doesnt say anywhere that we can stuff the carcass of dead animals and pretend that they're still alive but we do it all the same. what's your point?

For this, I'm not sure what your point is, unless it's "uh oh, somebody actually did some research and has hard evidence that the site doesn't even do what it promises to do.

So this isn't your post, or this, or this, or this which reads, and I copy and paste:

Just because the paper is meant for important writings doesnt mean anything important is ever written on it. I dont care for or trust in integrity. I care and trust in the rage and frustration of the people who spent 70 bucks for a console game on PC.

Seems to me you said exactly that, and then go on, once again, to deny you said anything of the kind, when it's right here, in black and white. The problem here is, on Metacritic, there's no guarantee that any given reviewer actually owns the game. I'll note the irony of the first statement in that second quote, all things considered. This along with you dismissing the purpose of the site, as stated by the people that own it. Even if they do have some of the "most respected reviewers online and in print" contributing reviews, the scores are still useless, since they are altered by 0/10 or 10/10 reviews from people that aren't any where near their stated criteria for a review. I didn't make that up, I pulled it directly from their website, and linked the page where it's presented.

[vnth]

Shown to be valid earlier in the thread. Your disdain means little to me, if you want to show it to be invalid then do so.

 

 

Tedious actually. You ran out of things long ago and have been whinging ever since.

 

 

It's such a pity its worth is adjudicated on how useful it is as a review service, which is a good thing because complaint services are arguably of little use. Not to mention the rote and late complaints on Metacritic make its use questionable even as a "complaint service."

 

Metacritic is a "review site" and its "user reviews" are worthless, thus it fails in its purpose. This is inarguable. 

 

 

Your assertions with nothing backing things up make it painfully clear.

yup still the same strategy. repeating old stuff, accusing others of your own behaviors. common keep going.

[keyip]

yup still the same strategy. repeating old stuff, accusing others of your own behaviors. common keep going.

 

An apt description of what you yourself are doing.

[vnth]

Well, thanks for your permission to post, I'm not sure I could go on w/out your consent.

oh so it's my fault you abandoned your own "argument," jumped to the middle of something else, quoted it, and then said "the reason i didnt reply to this..." 

 

 

 Also, it might be wise to not deny things you said in a forum where people can do exactly as you suggested, and go read your old posts, and then link them for anyone else that's interested in seeing just how much credence they should lend to anything you say.

i could repeat my argument or answer your charges a hundred times over and it would be a hundred times wasted. i in fact did that twice already. thats should be more than enough. similarly, you could summarize my words a hundred times and none of it would ever be comprehensible.

 

 

For this, I'm not sure what your point is, unless it's "uh oh, somebody actually did some research and has hard evidence that the site doesn't even do what it promises to do.

research eh? ok sure lol. well anyways since you are going to take all advertisements at their word, next time you eat at a restaurant, be sure to ask the owner if the place really has "the best ribs in town," or better yet, ask coke if their vitamin water really contains "antioxidant vitamins to help fight free radicals and help support your body."  (spoiler: it doesnt)

 

 

The problem here is, on Metacritic, there's no guarantee that any given reviewer actually owns the game.

yes im quite aware of your paranoia, and to that, im gonna repost myself: mt isnt most trolls because its complaints are accurate and its complaints are accurate because most of it isnt trolls. self-evident. 

[vnth]

An apt description of what you yourself are doing.

lol it is truly amazing that even after being exposed and have nothing to say for your own defense, you're still hoping to have the last word. 

[keyip]

lol it is truly amazing that even after being exposed and have nothing to say for your own defense, you're still hoping to have the last word. 

 

This coming from the person who has been unable to respond to a single one of my statements.

 

Do keep trying though, you provide much entertainment on those boring summer nights. I'm actually hanging around to see if you had ANY basis backing those statements you made. Tragically it looks like you plucked them all from thin air.

 

Or maybe you're repeating what you heard on Metacritic.

[vnth]

This coming from the person who has been unable to respond to a single one of my statements.

lol which one, the last one where you said essentially nothing, or the one before that where you just repeated yourself? in both cases i thought ive responded quite sufficiently by predicting that all your reactions can sum up to: making up wild conspiracy theories, feigning ignorant and misunderstanding others on purpose, and repeating the whole definition thing over and over again.

 

 

Or maybe you're repeating what you heard on Metacritic.

i also predicted this one under the category of "ran out of things to say."

[Akka le Vil]

vnth, why do you keep bothering with arguing against walls ?

Just ignore them, if someone does not WANT to understand, he never will.

[keyip]

lol which one, the last one where you said essentially nothing, or the one before that where you just repeated yourself? 

 

- The one where I pointed out that Metacritic doesn't release information before anywhere else. I believe your response to my evidence was "I stand by my comment" to which I replied "you're still wrong."

- The one where I pointed out Metacritic doesn't fulfill its purpose by providing user reviews. Your response to this was brilliant, it was "it doesn't have to provide reviews to still be useful," to which I replied "it still fails its purpose and is therefore useless as a review site." Your response was to put your fingers in your ears.

- The one where I pointed out how Metacritic was full of people who have agendas that taint the review scores. The review scores therefore don't reflect user experiences. I believe your response to this was "it still makes sense, there's still a trend." Congratulations.

- The one where I pointed out that complaints regarding MMO and fetch quests are old Bioware complaints.

- The one where I pointed out that Console UI are old Bioware complaints.

 

And many more, all just on the last page. Like I said, hardly ANY of your statements concerning Metacritic actually hold up to scrutiny of any kind.

 

But feel free to keep trying. I will be sitting here, amused, still waiting for responses.

 

vnth, why do you keep bothering with arguing against walls ?

Just ignore them, if someone does not WANT to understand, he never will.

 

Perspective is a funny thing isn't it? Because from where I'm sitting, wall no.2 just advised wall no.1 to ignore "walls."

[BammBamm]

 I dont care for or trust in integrity. I care and trust in the rage and frustration of the people who spent 70 bucks for a console game on PC.

 

this one is the whole point of the discussion. its not about information about a game, its not about the strenghts and weaknesses of a game, its not about a neutral point of view. its just to find another pack of dramaqueens supporting its own opinion and howl together at the moon.  well for this kind of behaviour metacritic is usefull and shows simultaneously how useless it is for people that search for information

you sir dont even understand the whole purpose of a review

[robertthebard]

oh so it's my fault you abandoned your own "argument," jumped to the middle of something else, quoted it, and then said "the reason i didnt reply to this..." 
i could repeat my argument or answer your charges a hundred times over and it would be a hundred times wasted. i in fact did that twice already. thats should be more than enough. similarly, you could summarize my words a hundred times and none of it would ever be comprehensible.
research eh? ok sure lol. well anyways since you are going to take all advertisements at their word, next time you eat at a restaurant, be sure to ask the owner if the place really has "the best ribs in town," or better yet, ask coke if their vitamin water really contains "antioxidant vitamins to help fight free radicals and help support your body."  (spoiler: it doesnt)
yes im quite aware of your paranoia, and to that, im gonna repost myself: mt isnt most trolls because its complaints are accurate and its complaints are accurate because most of it isnt trolls. self-evident.

This is amusing. However, the line that takes all the wind out of your sails is this:

I dont care for or trust in integrity. I care and trust in the rage

A position that makes it quite clear why you go to Metacritic.

[Akka le Vil]

Perspective is a funny thing isn't it? Because from where I'm sitting, wall no.2 just advised wall no.1 to ignore "walls."

 

Good thing not all perspectives are worth the same, and you're part of the side which is unable to grasp simple points that have been spelled out for them already.

[robertthebard]

Good thing not all perspectives are worth the same, and you're part of the side which is unable to grasp simple points that have been spelled out for them already.

Yes, such as "Don't take the scores on a website that exists primarily as a source of a score at face value". Actually, I believe most of us have grasped that quite well. That's why we don't use the site.

About Us-Metacritic

I really love this line, taken from the above linked page:

Find the critics' consensus in one place, with a single “Metascore”

Metacritic's proprietary Metascore distills the opinions of the most respected critics writing online and in print to a single number.

That's blatantly false, since the score is affected by everyone who posts a review. There are no criteria required to post a review other than an account, so, since we can't take the score at face value, the site has no value. Hindsight is 20/20, we can point at a lot of troll sites and say "hey, they have a point", but that doesn't instantly validate them as a site for information for someone that doesn't know anything about a product. Based entirely on what we know about the site, if I were looking for anything else they have a review on, I would disregard it as a source of information. I have standards, I want to know that I'm not getting a score that can be based, in whole or in part, on people that weren't happy about something totally unrelated to the game/product. In this game's case, things like "My Warden was reduced to a War Table mission" 0/10, or "It's a bioware game" 10/10. I'm sure there are a lot of both of those types of "reviews". I've actually played the game, being as fair as I can, it's a 7-7.5 in my book. So I know both of those listed are simply there to manipulate the score, thereby making the site worthless for people that don't know anything about it.

[vnth]

- The one where I pointed out that Metacritic doesn't release information before anywhere else. I believe your response to my evidence was "I stand by my comment" to which I replied "you're still wrong."

nope. my evidence was that everything that was every complained here was mentioned on mt on day 1. and to that you replied with your stock criticism theory.

 

 

The one where I pointed out Metacritic doesn't fulfill its purpose by providing user reviews. Your response to this was brilliant, it was "it doesn't have to provide reviews to still be useful," to which I replied "it still fails its purpose and is therefore useless as a review site." Your response was to put your fingers in your ears.

review definition

 

 

 The one where I pointed out how Metacritic was full of people who have agendas that taint the review scores. The review scores therefore don't reflect user experiences

repeating old argument

 

The one where I pointed out that complaints regarding MMO and fetch quests are old Bioware complaints.

- The one where I pointed out that Console UI are old Bioware complaints.

wild conspiracy theories, including the now famous stock criticism theory. 

 

did i missed anything?

[vnth]

this one is the whole point of the discussion. its not about information about a game, its not about the strenghts and weaknesses of a game, its not about a neutral point of view. its just to find another pack of dramaqueens supporting its own opinion and howl together at the moon.  well for this kind of behaviour metacritic is usefull and shows simultaneously how useless it is for people that search for information

you sir dont even understand the whole purpose of a review

your argument is wrong on 2 counts. 1st it implies that ONLY a proper review can provide information about a game. 2nd, it implies that people dont use "proper" reviews or the score to validate their own vapid preformed opinion about a game. moreover, not only it is wrong but also irrelevant, because unless you want to ignore the op entirely, the person clearly sated that mt is joke on all level, not just as "proper" review.

[keyip]

nope. my evidence was that everything that was every complained here was mentioned on mt on day 1. and to that you replied with your stock criticism theory.

 

Which you haven't been able to answer apart from "it's a stock criticism theory." Which is exactly my point.

 

review definition

 

Is an appraisal of a video game, an evaluation of its entire experience.

 

repeating old argument

 

Because you requested it.

 

wild conspiracy theories, including the now famous stock criticism theory. 

 

 

Your "wild conspiracy theory" is a stock criticism inaccurately applied, but feel free to show otherwise.

 

i missed anything?

 

Yes. Logic and facts.

[keyip]

1st it implies that ONLY a proper review can provide information about a game.

 

It doesn't.

 

the person clearly sated that mt is joke on all level, not just as "proper" review.

 

Strawman, and false.

[vnth]

This is amusing. However, the line that takes all the wind out of your sails is this:


A position that makes it quite clear why you go to Metacritic.

im sorry is that supposed to be insulting? yes that is why i prefer mt and i said as much myself. youre not really insulting anyone. if you want to trust in the integrity of a bunch of shady and incompetent professionals go ahead. as for me, i prefer the lesser of the 2 devils. also i take it that you have now abandon all your previous "arguments," including the monkey and the advertisement one?

[vnth]

Which you haven't been able to answer apart from "it's a stock criticism theory." Which is exactly my point.

 

nope another lie. to this i answered with balance of probabilities, to which you answered with take you at your word.

 

 

Yes. Logic and facts.

feign ignorant  to ignore the other's argument on purpose. 

 

common old sport youre getting too predictable.